What's new
By:
Guest viewing is limited

Atheist group wants to stop World Trade Center cross

E

eiramnoaj

It's certainly much better to kick **** than to be
PF Member
Messages
18,763
Highlights
0
Reaction score
0
Points
602
Peak Coin
0.000000¢
DB Transfer
0.000000¢
Unreal.:surrender:


http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/26/new.york.wtc.cross/index.html?iref=allsearch

(CNN) -- A group of atheists has filed a lawsuit to stop the display of the World Trade Center cross at a memorial of the 9/11 terror attacks.
The "government enshrinement of the cross was an impermissible mingling of church and state," the American Atheists say in a press statement.
The group says it filed the lawsuit this week in state court in New York and posted a copy of the lawsuit on its website.
The lawsuit names many defendants, including the state of New Jersey, the city of New York , New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.
The World Trade Center cross, two intersecting steel beams that held up when the twin towers collapsed on September 11, 2001, is seen as iconic to some.
The cross was moved Saturday from near a church to its new home at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum. There was also ceremonial blessing of the cross in a service led by Father Brian Jordan, a Franciscan monk who ministered to workers clearing the area after the 9/11 attacks.
Joe Daniels, 9/11 Memorial president, said Saturday that the cross is "an important part of our commitment to bring back the authentic physical reminders that tell the history of 9/11 in a way nothing else could.
"Its return is a symbol of the progress on the Memorial & Museum that we feel rather than see, reminding us that commemoration is at the heart of our mission."
But the atheist group says the cross sends a symbol of something different.
"The WTC cross has become a Christian icon," said Dave Silverman, president of the atheist group. "It has been blessed by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their god, who couldn't be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists or prevent 3,000 people from being killed in his name, cared only enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross. It's a truly ridiculous assertion."
 
Unbelivable!!!!!! Now our tax dollars will have to be used to fight idiots.
 
Crazy! I think some people just want their names in the news. Separation of church and state came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist society in 1802 because basically he didn't want government to interfere in religion. Separation of Church and State isn't even in our Constitution!
 
Honestly.......Is it HURTING anyone??

Do any of them.....or anyone else who disagrees with it.......live near the WTC where you're going to have to look at it everyday?

If it really bothers you that much to look at a cross....then you must live a sad, pathetic life.

I look at things every day that bother me, and 99.9% of the time, it's not worth it to stress out about it.
 
Pirate Wench said:
Honestly.......Is it HURTING anyone??
Click to expand...

Sure. It's hurting citizens by wasting public funds on a religious display.

Not everyone who died in the WTC was Christian.

I know Christians will want to believe it is some sort of sign from God that rubble happened to land in an X, but that does not give a governmental entity the right to use public funds to beatify that rubble as a religious display.

Christians (of which I am one BTW) willfully ignore that episodes like these set legal precedents. If public funds are allowed for this use, then every religious group will be able to make a legal case that public funds should be used for THEIR religious displays.

There is/was/is the potential for plenty of private funding for a display like this. Involving public funds was just stupid, and I hope the atheists win. My objection is a legal one, not a religious one.
 
I'm pretty sure Tazz looks at this site nearly every day. Also pretty sure Joanmarie is quite close to this area also.
 
ennui said:
Funny how some of the same folks upset by this lawsuit were enraged that a mosque & Muslim community center was built on private land a few blocks from the WTC.
Click to expand...

But that was a totally different issue. That was (in many people's view) in bad taste. The towers were brought down by Muslim extremists. I'm not saying the mosque and center were going to be run by extremists, but it still didn't seem like the best place for such a center.

This cross was a part of the WTC. It's a part of the history of the days following the attacks. Many people drew strength from them.

As far as "wasting public funds on a religious display", well then why should we waste public funds on any museum?


Lisa, I'm about 45 minutes North of NYC. Whenever I was in lower Manhattan, the towers were always an easy way of telling if you were facing uptown or downtown. (It's pretty easy to get lost in that part of the city.)
 
eiramnoaj said:
But that was a totally different issue. That was (in many people's view) in bad taste. The towers were brought down by Muslim extremists. I'm not saying the mosque and center were going to be run by extremists, but it still didn't seem like the best place for such a center.

This cross was a part of the WTC. It's a part of the history of the days following the attacks. Many people drew strength from them.
Click to expand...
First putting a cross on government property violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. No ifs, and or buts. Unless you want to claim that a cross is not a religious symbol? :snicker:

Slavery was a part of history too. It was outlawed & banned. Southern states that still use that Confederate flag are disgusting. They use that same "part of our history" nonsense in defending their flying of that racist trash flag.

Just as Muslims have every right to build whatever they wish on private property, even right across the street from the WTC, if Christians wish to move this cross to private property that is their right. As long as no government funds are used, no laws will have been violated.

BTW, being in bad taste does not make something illegal.
 
I think it's inappropriate to use public funds for this as well. I actually am an atheist, and years ago I would have got all worked up about this. If this were to start a domino effect, like mentioned above- paving the way for other groups to use public funds for religious diplays- I would get all worked up about that. These days I am more 'live & let live' than outwardly vocal about things like this. It will be a dinner conversation with the kids, though.

I have to say though, I would be more bothered (idk, not really bothered, but I'm at a loss for words today) visiting the WTC site & seeing a cross than I would be visiting the WTC area & seeing a community center. The community center (bad taste or not, based on your opinion) serves a purpose & it's underlying theme is GOOD. Putting a large cross as a memorial to those who died, when not everyone who died was a Christian isn't in good taste, imo. It kind of discounts everyone who wasn't a Christian who died there, as if they/their religion isn't important enough to publicly recognize.
 
ennui said:
First putting a cross on government property violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. No ifs, and or buts. Unless you want to claim that a cross is not a religious symbol? :snicker:

Slavery was a part of history too. It was outlawed & banned. Southern states that still use that Confederate flag are disgusting. They use that same "part of our history" nonsense in defending their flying of that racist trash flag.

Just as Muslims have every right to build whatever they wish on private property, even right across the street from the WTC, if Christians wish to move this cross to private property that is their right. As long as no government funds are used, no laws will have been violated.

BTW, being in bad taste does not make something illegal.
Click to expand...

So you're saying a cross at the ground zero memorial is as bad as the confederate flag? Really? (I know I shouldn't be surprised, but somehow I am.)
 
dragonfly said:
I think it's inappropriate to use public funds for this as well. I actually am an atheist, and years ago I would have got all worked up about this. If this were to start a domino effect, like mentioned above- paving the way for other groups to use public funds for religious diplays- I would get all worked up about that. These days I am more 'live & let live' than outwardly vocal about things like this. It will be a dinner conversation with the kids, though.

I have to say though, I would be more bothered (idk, not really bothered, but I'm at a loss for words today) visiting the WTC site & seeing a cross than I would be visiting the WTC area & seeing a community center. The community center (bad taste or not, based on your opinion) serves a purpose & it's underlying theme is GOOD. Putting a large cross as a memorial to those who died, when not everyone who died was a Christian isn't in good taste, imo. It kind of discounts everyone who wasn't a Christian who died there, as if they/their religion isn't important enough to publicly recognize.
Click to expand...


I give up. :surrender:
 
I wouldn't mind the cross as an art installation so long as it was covered in Co-Exist bumper stickers.


coexist.jpg
 
eiramnoaj said:
So you're saying a cross at the ground zero memorial is as bad as the confederate flag? Really? (I know I shouldn't be surprised, but somehow I am.)
Click to expand...


It is not bad as as symbol. It is bad that public funds are being used to install it.

The smartguys behind this really dropped the ball. One one of hundreds of organizations would have paid to have the cross put there.
 
while not illegal, it's not unreasonable to hope, even expect, that people and institutions would use some common sense and decency in a situation like this.... respect to honor the lives of those who died ..... likely not something one could truly understand unless it was your husband, your wife, your child, your friend, your firefighter brother... ​

plus, I recall these concerns from last summer..... who knows if they aren't true or if there isn't other government assistance US citizens are supposed to be ok with funding... because well, the rest of us are supposed to exhibit common sense and decency, but criticized for expecting any in return :(​


The imam behind a plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero is set to depart on a multi-country jaunt to the Middle East funded by the State Department -- raising concerns that taxpayers may be helping him with the controversial project's $100 million fund-raising goal. ​


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/10/tax-dollars-to-build-mosques/

The State Department is sending Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf - the mastermind of the Ground Zero Mosque - on a trip through the Middle East to foster “greater understanding†about Islam and Muslim communities in the United States. However, important questions are being raised about whether this is simply a taxpayer-funded fundraising jaunt to underwrite his reviled project, which is moving ahead in Lower Manhattan.
Mr. Rauf is scheduled to go to Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and Qatar, the usual stops for Gulf-based fundraising. The State Department defends the five-country tour saying that Mr. Rauf is “a distinguished Muslim cleric,†but surely the government could find another such figure in the United States who is not seeking millions of dollars to fund a construction project that has so strongly divided America.


As for the Cross becoming "a Christian icon" according to Mr. Silverman,... there are PLENTY of religious icons, in PLENTY of museums all over America, museums funded by the government, .... preserved for posterity, special and sacred for the piece of history that they are and the memories they invoke, the lessons they teach us..... maybe all religious "icons", Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, ALL of them, should be de-funded ... I wonder how that would go over ...
 
cookiemom said:
maybe all religious "icons", Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, ALL of them, should be de-funded ... I wonder how that would go over ...
Click to expand...

So you're saying a cross at the ground zero memorial is the same as religious relics in museums? Really? (I know I shouldn't be surprised, but somehow I am.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top